Re: SVG 1.2 Comment: Detailed last call comments (all chapters)

On Wednesday, November 10, 2004, 12:45:14 PM, Ian wrote:


>> We have fill, stroke, filter, etc., why suddenly we cannot have overlay?

IH> 'filter' in particular is a problem. It clashes with a property that
IH> was in an older draft of CSS2, and which was implemented by IE.

This is sheer historical revisionism. I was there, and you were not.
Microsoft first implemented the property, as a vendor extension, then
suggested adding their filter effects to CSS. There was some interest,
but they were unable in spite of repeated requests to come up with any
defined processing model or definition of what they did beyond the
actual names. This took a while, i believe its called 'talking out' ...
ensures a proprietary alternative as a good market lead by bogging down
standardization efforts.

At which point, I got an action item to ask the SVG WG about that and see
if there were filter effects with defined graphical behavior that could
actually be implemented by two independent groups and get the same
result. SVG WG developed some.

I then reported back on this, showed a demo, described the
specification, etc. Some of the group were in favor. One company - one
with a proprietary specification to protect - objected to referencing
SVG from the CSS spec and so, after the usual discussion, delay, etc
they were dropped because the CSS WG could not agree to reference
another specification. Instead, they developed the text
shadow, over my objections, overlapping with SVG work that they had
already had demonstrated to them.

IH> It basically means that IE will never be able to implement SVG in
IH> HTML. (A lot of legacy content uses the 'filter' property.)

Which is entirely the CSS WG fault for not providing a standard
alternative in a timely manner.


-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group

Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 12:09:46 UTC